ABSTRACT

In the previous chapter, I concluded that special relationships do not require an analytical category of their own: they are more fruitfully approached as particular manifestations of the generic category inter-state relationships. Further, the chapter made a case for continuing to study everyday uses of representations and phrases such as ‘special relationship’ as a practical category, as these representations and phrases are not only reflective of, but also have the ability to influence – even constitute – the dynamics between states.